/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160707.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 135 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Removes "Lopez" Suit to New Jersey District Court 817 CORP: "Bass" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay AMBAC FINANCIAL: Aug. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set BANK OF AMERICA: "Louisiana" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations BRINKS INC: "Cruz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit in Texas Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA CONAIR CORP: August 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set CPI CARD GROUP: "Chipman" Sues Over Share Price Drop CR ENGLAND INC: "Brown" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages DENSO CORP: "Landers" Sues Over Price Fixing of Ceramic Substrates DOMETIC CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Exploding" Refrigerators FACEBOOK INC: Judge Denies Class Certification in Privacy Suit FIVE GUYS: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Gender Bias in Pay Practices FORD MOTOR: Customers Asked to Sign Confidentiality Agreement FORD MOTOR: Car Woes Blamed on Female Plaintiffs' Driving Skills GALT, CA: "Fisher" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay GAW MINERS: "Audet" Sues over Investment Fraud GOOD TREATS: Faces "Rhoten" Suit Alleging Labor Code Violations H&M MAINTENANCE: "Duran" Suit Alleges FLSA, Co. Wage Act "Breach" HALYARD HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York HARRIS MARTIN: Aug. 1 Status Conference Set in Talcum Powder Suit HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action HELIX ENERGY: Tex. Suit Claims Fair Labor Standards Act Violation HONEST CO: Faces Class Actions Over Product Ingredients HYUNDAI MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sunroof Class Action INTERCEPT PHARMA: September 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set JTEKT CORP: Faces "Lane" Suit Alleging Antitrust Law Violation KRAFT HEINZ: "Agles" Mislabelling Suit transferred to N.D. Ill. LATERAL LINK: Former Recruiter Loses Misclassification Case LKM ENTERPRISES: "Mahrous" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay MODELO HEALTH: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Under Fair Labor Standards Act MORGAN STANLEY: "Zajonc" Labor Case Transferred to S.D. Fla. NANT CAPITAL: "Solak" Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties NCR CORP: "Meadows" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay NII HOLDINGS: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiff Landowners Win Map Act Class Action ONTARIO, CA: "Nevin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay PACSUN: Judge Grants Class Certification in PAGA Suit PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set PHILADELPHIA: Appeal in "Berry" Suit Pending in Penn. S.C. REMCON ENTERPRISES: "Davies" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SIMON PROPERTY: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay SPOTIFY USA: Faces Cal. Lawsuit Over Premium Subscription Service SUBARU: Certain Loss Claims Over Takata Airbags Can Proceed THERANOS INC: C.M. & S.G. Sues Over Fake Testing Machine PREMIER CRU: Settles Wine Class Action, July 27 Hearing Set PRIDE MOBILITY: Becomes Bellwether Antitrust Class Action in UK REEL GROUP: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA RESOURCE AMERICA: "Gansman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal SYNTHES INC: Trial Commences in Suit Over Norian Bone Cement TNG WAXING: "Lowe" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay VISA: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal Over High ATM Fees VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Pay $50MM in Civil Penalties to State of Texas VOLKSWAGEN AG: Kiwi Customers Won't Get Emissions Compensation VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Promises Full Restitution to Consumers VOLVO: Superior Court Grants New Trial in Crashworthiness Case WAL-MART: "Manfredi" Mislabelling Suit transferred to N.D. Ill. WALTER INVESTMENT: October 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set WEST SACRAMENTO, CA: "Barreiro" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ZEEKREWARDS: Founder Faces Trial Over Alleged $900MM Scam ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Removes "Lopez" Suit to New Jersey District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. removes the suit: "ELDER AUGUSTIN LOPEZ, ELBIN AUGUSTIN, ELIO PEREZ ESTEBAN, and all similarly situated present and former employees of the defendants herein, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., ABC COMPANY, ALPESH PATEL, NICK PATEL, JENNY PATEL, SANJIV JOSH, and JOHN DOE #1-5, JAMES DOE and JANE DOE #1-100, jointly, severally, and individually, cv-03696-MAS-DEA (June 23, 2016)" from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton Vicinage. 7-Eleven is an international chain of convenience stores that operates, franchises and licenses some 58,300 stores in 17 countries. 7-Eleven Inc. is headquartered in the US city of Dallas The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard H. Bauch, Esq. BAUCH ZUCKER HATFIELD LLC 871 Mountain Avenue, Suite 200 Springfield, NJ 07081 Phone: 973-376-4000 Fax: 973-376-4033 E-mail: rhb@bzh-law.com - and - Eric A. Welter, Esq. M. Wilson Stoker, Esq. WELTER LAW FIRM, P.C. 1141 Elden Street, Suite 220 Herndon, VA 20170 Phone: 703-435-8500 Fax: 703-435-8851 E-mail: eaw@welterlaw.com mws@welterlaw.com 817 CORP: "Bass" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Sean Bass, Individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 817 Corp., d/b/a Gene's Haufbrau, Jason Stalker and Liam Tyrrell individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16- cv-01964 (D.S.C., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, unlawfully retained portions of tips received, compensatory damages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, treble damages pursuant to the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred, restitution of wages and gratuities improperly retained by Defendant and all such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 817 Corp, is a South Carolina limited liability company that operates Gene's Haufbrau, a restaurant located at 817 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29407 where Plaintiff was employed as a server. The Defendants are represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone & Fax (800) 385-8160 Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net AMBAC FINANCIAL: Aug. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased shares of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. ("Ambac Financial") between November 13, 2013 and June 30, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York. To get more information go to: zlk.9nl.com/ambac or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Ambac made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts concerning the Company's losses and loss exposure on its public finance bond portfolio, risk management, and internal controls. The complaint further alleges that these misstatements allowed the stock to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Following the June 29, 2015 revelation that Puerto Rico would likely default on upcoming interest payments, and that as a result, Ambac was potentially liable for up to $2.5 billion worth of Commonwealth debt the Company insured, Ambac stock fell approximately 29%, causing investors substantial losses. Then on May 11, 2016, Ambac admitted in an SEC filing that management "had identified a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting." If you suffered a loss in Ambac Financial you have until August 29, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. BANK OF AMERICA: "Louisiana" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Nomura International PLC, Hiren Gudka, Amandeep Singh Manku, Shailen Pau and Bhardeep Singh Heer, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04151 (S.D.N.Y, June 14, 2016), seeks damages for violations of federal antitrust laws; reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses; and such further relief for violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Defendants are traders of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds denominated in various currencies and allegedly colluded with each other to fix the prices of these bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the secondary market. Bank of America, N.A. is a banking and financial services firm with its principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited is a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A., with its principal place of business located at 2 King Edward Street, London EC1A 1 HQ, England. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank is a banking entity headquartered at 9, quai du President Paul Doumer, La Defense Cedex, 92920 Paris, France. Credit Suisse is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch office located at 11 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New York. Deutsche Bank is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch office located at 60 Wall Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York. Nomura is a financial services company with its principal place of business at 1 Angel Lane, London EC4R 3AB, England. Hiren Gudka, Singh Manku and Shailen Pau were bond traders employed by Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 Email: jerry@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com - and - Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. Benjamin Galdston, Esq. David Kaplan, Esq. Lucas Gilmore, Esq. Brandon Marsh, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 720-3183 Fax: (858) 793-0323 Email: blairn@blbglaw.com benjaming@blbglaw.com davidk@blbglaw.com lucasg@blbglaw.com brandonm@blbglaw.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. William P. Butterfield, Esq. Timothy S. Kearns, Esq. Sarah R. LaFreniere, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com wbutterfield@hausfeld.com tkearns@hausfeld.com slafreniere@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com BRINKS INC: "Cruz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- Carlos Cruz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brink's, Inc., Jeffrey Hill and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80975 (N.Y. Sup., June 15, 2016), seeks overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws. Defendant is involved in armored car transportation, money processing, long-distance transport of valuables, vaulting and other value-added solutions with principal place of business located at 652 Kent Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11550. Plaintiff was employed as a driver. Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit in Texas Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- International Union Of Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension Plan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., CBL & Associates Limited Partnership, Stephen D. Lebovitz, Farzana K. Mitchell and John N. Foy, Case 1:16-cv-00248 (E.D. Tenn., June 23, 2016), is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CBL between August 9, 2011 and May 24, 2016, inclusive. Defendant CBL is a self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real estate investment trust. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Wood, Esq. Jerry E. Martin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: 615/244-2203 Fax: 615/252-3798 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com jmartin@rgrdlaw.com CONAIR CORP: August 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA If you bought a Conair(C) Infiniti Pro hair dryer, a class action lawsuit may affect your rights. Includes 1875 watt Infiniti Pro models 259 and 279 A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Consumers have sued Conair Corporation ("Conair") claiming its Infiniti Pro 259 and 279 model 1875 watt hair dryers are defective. Personal injury and property damage claims are not included in or affected by this lawsuit. The Court has allowed the lawsuit to be a class action on behalf of California and New York residents that purchased a Conair 259 or 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt hair dryer, anytime after August 15, 2009. The Court has not decided whether Conair did anything wrong. There is no money available now and no guarantee there will be. However, your legal rights are affected, and you have a choice to make. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT: DO NOTHING Stay in this class action lawsuit. Await the outcome. Give up certain rights. By doing nothing, you keep the possibility of sharing in money or benefits that may be recovered through trial or settlement, but you will be legally bound by orders and judgments of the Court and will give up the right to sue Conair separately for the legal claims in this lawsuit. ASK TO BE EXCLUDED Get out of this class action lawsuit. Get nothing from it. Keep rights. If you ask to be excluded, you will keep your rights to sue Conair separately for the same legal claims made in this lawsuit, but you will give up your right to possibly share in money or benefits if they are awarded in this case. These options are explained in this notice. To exclude yourself, you must act by August 9, 2016. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Why did I get this notice? A court authorized this notice because you, or someone in your family, may have purchased a 259 or 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt hair dryer sold by Conair sometime between August 15, 2009 and now. The Court has certified this case as a class action lawsuit and you have the right to know about the lawsuit, and about your options, before the case goes to trial. This notice explains the lawsuit, your legal rights, and your options. Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is overseeing this case. The case is titled, Cynthia L. Czuchaj, et al. v. Conair Corporation, Case No. 13CV01901 BEN (RBB). 2. What is a class action and who is involved? In a class action lawsuit, one or more people, called "Class Representatives" (in this case Cynthia L. Czuchaj and Patricia Carter) sue on behalf of other people that have been affected by the same unlawful conduct and harmed in the same way. Together all of these people are called a "Class" or "Class Members". The Court resolves the claims made in the lawsuit for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class. The people who filed the lawsuit are called the Plaintiffs, and the company they sued, Conair, is called the Defendant. 3. Why is this lawsuit a class action? The Court decided that the lawsuit satisfies all of the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's Orders and Opinions explaining its decision are available at www.ConairClassAction.com THE CLAIMS IN THE LAWSUIT 4. What is this lawsuit about? The lawsuit is about whether the 259 and 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt hair dryers sold by Conair have defectively designed heating coils and electrical cords which cause the dryers to fail, and sometimes injure consumers. The lawsuit claims these Conair hair dryers have (1) a motor that shakes excessively causing coils inside the dryer to touch, short circuit, and in some instances, shoot coils or flames from the barrel (the "Coil Defect"), and (2) an electrical cord that is too short and stiff that, when bent, the cord can break wires and electrical insulation causing electrical shock and fire (the "Cord Defect"). Personal injury and property damage claims are not included in or affected by this lawsuit. If you have been injured or your property has been damaged by one of these Conair hair dryers, you may bring a separate lawsuit against Conair for reimbursement of medical expenses, pain and suffering, and damage to property. Staying in this lawsuit will not prevent you from bringing those claims, but you must hire a separate attorney and bring a separate claim against Conair. 5. How does Conair respond to the lawsuit? Conair states that their 259 and 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt hair dryers are properly designed and do not contain any defects. They further claim that any problems were caused by failure to follow their safety instructions. 6. Has the Court decided who is right? No. The Court has not made a decision regarding the claims made in this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs will present their case and Conair will present their defenses at a trial. QUESTIONS? Call 1-844-286-9535 Toll Free, or visit www.ConairClassAction.com 7. What benefits are the Plaintiffs asking in this lawsuit? The Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to obtain reimbursement of some or all of the price consumers paid to purchase the hair dryers. WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS 8. How do I know if I am part of the Class? The Class includes: All California and New York residents who purchased either a model 259 or 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt hair dryer, between August 15, 2009 and the present, sold by Defendant Conair Corporation directly or through a retailer for primarily personal, family, or household purposes, and not for resale. 9. Which Conair hair dryers are included? Infiniti Pro by Conair 1875 watt hair dryers with model number 259 and 279 are included in this lawsuit. 10. I haven't had a coil or cord issue with my hair dryer, am I included? Yes. You are included in this lawsuit even if your hair dryer has not had a cord or coil issue yet. YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS If you believe you are a Class Member, you have to decide whether to stay in the Class or exclude yourself from it by August 9, 2016. 11. What happens if I do nothing? If you do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the Class. You will keep the possibility of receiving money or benefits from this lawsuit, but you will give up your right to sue or continue to sue Conair -- as part of any other lawsuit -- for the same legal claims made in this class action. You will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court. 12. What happens if I exclude myself? If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be able to receive any money or benefits from this lawsuit if they are awarded or obtained, but you will keep your right to sue Conair as part of another lawsuit for the same claims made in this case. You will not be bound by any of the Court's orders or judgments. 13. How do I ask to be excluded from the lawsuit? To ask to be excluded, you must complete and sign the enclosed "Opt-Out Form". The Opt-Out Form must be postmarked no later than August 9, 2016 and mailed to: Conair Class Action Notice Administrator P.O. Box 43416, Providence, RI 02940-3416 QUESTIONS? Call 1-844-286-9535 Toll Free, or visit www.ConairClassAction.com 14. If I don't exclude myself, can I sue Conair for the same thing later? No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue Conair for the claims made in this lawsuit. If you have a pending lawsuit against Conair for the same claims made in this lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that lawsuit immediately. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU 15. Do I have a lawyer in this case? The Court appointed the law firms of Odenbreit Law, APC, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, and Bisnar|Chase LLP to represent you and other Class Members. Together, the lawyers are called Class Counsel. You will not be charged for the work the lawyers have and will perform. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. 16. How will the lawyers be paid? If you participate in this lawsuit, you will not be required to personally pay attorneys' fees or expenses to Class Counsel. This is true whether or not they win or lose this case. Class Counsel will be paid only if the Class wins at trial or if the case settles. If that happens, the attorneys' fees will be paid by Conair or as a percentage of any monetary judgment or settlement in favor of the Class as ordered by the Court. If there is no recovery, there will be no attorneys' fees paid to the lawyers. THE TRIAL 17. How and when will the Court decide who is right? Judge Benitez set the case for trial on September 13, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101. During the trial, a jury or the Judge will hear all of the evidence and decide whether Plaintiffs or Conair are right about the claims in the lawsuit. There is no guarantee Plaintiffs will win, or that they will get money or benefits for the Class. 18. Do I have to come to the trial? No. You do not need to attend the trial. Class Counsel will present the case for Plaintiffs and Conair will present its defenses. You, or your own lawyer, are welcome to come at your own expense. GETTING MORE INFORMATION 19. Are more details about this lawsuit available? This notice summarizes the class action lawsuit against Conair. More details are contained in the court documents, which can be reviewed at www.ConairClassAction.com You may also call 1-844-286-9535 toll free or write to Conair Class Action Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 43416, Providence, RI 02940-3416 for more information. Do not contact the Court or the Clerk's Office. CPI CARD GROUP: "Chipman" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Sterling Chipman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CPI Card Group Inc., Steven Montross, David Brush, Jerry Dreiling, Bradley Seaman, Nicholas Peters, Robert Pearce, David Rowntree, Tricor Pacific Capital Partners (Fund IV), Limited Partnership, Tricor Pacific Capital Partners (Fund IV) US, Limited Partnership, Tricor Pacific Capital, Inc., BMO Capital Markets Corp., Goldman, Sachs & Co., CIBC World Markets Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. and Griffiths Mcburney Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04539 (S.D. N.Y., June 15, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, interests thereon, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities Act of 1933. CPI is a provider of payment card production and related services, offering a single source for credit, debit and prepaid debit cards including Europay, MasterCard and Visa chips, personalization, instant issuance, fulfillment and mobile payment services. It issued an IPO on October 9, 2015. EMV cards were significantly over-inventoried with Europay, MasterCard and Visa cards having increased purchases in the first half of 2015 far in excess of card issuance thereby resulting in a massive backlog of cards at those larger issuer customers. Defendant failed to disclose these material facts. Chipman purchased CPI common stock traceable to the IPO, and lost substantially upon corrective disclosures. Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631/367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: 770/392-0090 Fax: 770/392-0029 Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com CR ENGLAND INC: "Brown" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Brown, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C.R. England, Inc. d/b/a Premier Truck Driving School, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01613-C (N.D. Tex., June 15, 2016), seeks overtime wages with damages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre and post judgment interest on all compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Premier is a trucking company, providing transportation and logistics services to customers throughout the country with principal office at 1230 S. Hwy. 67, Cedar Hills, Texas 75104, where Plaintiff was employed as a commercial truck driver. Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Dortch, Esq. Benton Williams II, Esq. COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 712-9500 Facsimile: (214) 712-9540 Email: micah.dortch@cooperscully.com benton.williams@cooperscully.com - and - Tom Carse, Esq. CARSE LAW FIRM 6220 Campbell Road, Ste. 401 Dallas, TX 75248 Telephone: (972) 503-6338 Facsimile: (972) 503-6348 Email: tom@carselaw.com DENSO CORP: "Landers" Sues Over Price Fixing of Ceramic Substrates ------------------------------------------------------------------ Landers Autogroup and similarly situated automotive dealers on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Denso Corporation, Denso International America, Inc., NGK Insulators Ltd., NGK Automotive Ceramics Usa, Inc., Corning International Kabushiki Kaisha and Corning Incorporated, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-12194 (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2016), asserts unfair competition, consumer protection and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act,. Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for ceramic substrates. Plaintiff is represented by: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 Email: gmantese@manteselaw.com ablum@manteselaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. David McMullan, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Victoria Romanenko, Esq. Yifei Li, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com evelyn@cuneolaw.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Email: sraiter@larsonking.com DOMETIC CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Exploding" Refrigerators --------------------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that after landing a $36 million settlement for owners of RVs and boats with refrigerators said to cause fires and explosions, the plaintiffs' law firm is going after the defendant's main competitor over products with the same problem. At least 3,000 refrigerators made by Pompano Beach-based company Dometic Corp. have leaked flammable gas and caused fires since 1997, according to a complaint filed on June 24 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. "We believe this is an important issue for many consumers across the country that we hope to assist," said Adam Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com -- of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in Coral Gables, one of the lawyers who filed the complaint. Not all of the named plaintiffs have experienced refrigerator fires. But they claim they suffered economic damages because they paid more for their boats and RVs than they would have if they had known about the alleged defect. They also claim fixing the problem would require replacing the refrigerator at a "significant cost." Dometic issued two recalls related to more than 955,000 refrigerators in 2006 and 2008, retro-fitting refrigerators with cooling unit devices. But the complaint alleges those changes did not solve the underlying issue, which is that the boiler tubes tend to corrode and leak chemicals. "Plaintiffs and class members should not have to wait until they experience a dangerous fire to seek relief for the defect," the complaint states. The complaint also claims Dometic concealed from consumers that the recall did not fix the underlying defect. The case was filed by Coral Gables firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, West Palm Beach firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley and Scottsdale, Arizona, firm Zimmerman Reed. Zimmerman Reed learned of the alleged defect during its three years of litigation against Norcold Inc., a competing refrigerator manufacturer. A federal judge in central California preliminarily approved a $36 million settlement for that class in March. The Dometic lawsuit comes two months after a similar complaint was filed in San Francisco federal court by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. In a statement responding to that lawsuit, Dometic refuted the plaintiffs' claims. "Dometic's opinion is that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them," the April 22 statement said. A marketing representative for the company did not respond to a request for comment on the Florida lawsuit on June 24. The newer of the two lawsuits covers owners of Dometic refrigerators in Florida, California, Minnesota, Georgia and North Carolina. FACEBOOK INC: Judge Denies Class Certification in Privacy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge in San Jose has denied class certification in a long-running case claiming that Facebook Inc. disclosed users' personally identifiable information to advertisers when they clicked on some Facebook ads. U.S. District Senior Judge Ronald Whyte wrote that individualized nature of the plaintiffs' claims weighed against class treatment, but the reasoning behind his decision will remain a mystery for at least two weeks. All but three pages of Whyte's 19-page order issued on June 28 were redacted. The judge wrote that he'd give the parties two weeks to seek to seal any "confidential information" revealed in his order. The ruling comes in a case that dates back to 2010, when several separate proposed class actions were consolidated before then-U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware. The suits alleged Facebook sent so-called "referer headers" to advertisers when users clicked a Facebook ads. Plaintiffs alleged that prior to July 2010 the headers transmitted information could allow an advertiser to identify the user who clicked a given ad despite Facebook's promises to only share anonymized data about users. In 2011, Judge Ware dismissed all claims that the plaintiffs had failed to show any actual harm or that their personally identifiable information had any value. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, revived plaintiffs' breach of contract and fraud claims finding that the plaintiffs could have been harmed by both "the dissemination of their personal information and by losing the sales value of that information." After Judge Ware's retirement, the case was reassigned to Judge Whyte. In a separate order from his class certification decision on June 28, Judge Whyte partially granted Facebook's latest motion to dismiss the case. He knocked out the individual claims of one of the two named plaintiffs, Katherine Pohl, finding that she had only clicked on one Facebook ad during the relevant period. That ad routed her to the advertiser's internal Facebook page, which Whyte found did not reveal any of her personal information. Whyte, however, found that named plaintiff Wendy Marfeo did have standing to sue. Kassra Nassiri of San Francisco's Nassiri & Jung, who represents the plaintiffs, didn't immediately respond to an email message. A Facebook spokesperson said that the company is "pleased that the court ruled in our favor and determined that the case should not proceed as a class action." FIVE GUYS: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Gender Bias in Pay Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ JODY FINEFROCK, JULIA FRANCIS, and SUSAN BARNINGER, individually and on behalf of a collective of others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. FIVE GUYS OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv- 01221-SHR (M.D. Fla., June 21, 2016), alleges gender discrimination in employee pay practices. Defendant Five Guys Operations, LLC owns and operates the corporate-owned Five Guys restaurants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2041 Herr Street Harrisburg, PA 17103 Phone: (717) 260-3854 Fax: (717) 233-8133 E-mail: lweisberg@mwcfirm.com dcummings@mwcfirm.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com FORD MOTOR: Customers Asked to Sign Confidentiality Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Sullivan, writing for News.com.au, reports that trading in your car usually doesn't involve signing a confidentiality agreement, but that's what Ford has asked some of its customers to do before agreeing to purchase their allegedly dodgy second-hand cars. A class action involving thousands of disgruntled Ford customers began in the NSW Federal Court on June 29. The company is accused of misleading and deceptive conduct in selling 22 different models of Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport vehicles between 2011 and this year. The 70,000 affected models are equipped with the Ford PowerShift transmission, which promises to deliver "acceleration much smoother than a conventional automatic". The PowerShift transmission has some of the features of a manual gearbox and is supposed to drive like an automatic. But some customers say their PowerShift cars shudder and jerk unexpectedly, slow down suddenly or turn themselves off altogether. While the class action already involves thousands of people, the court on June 29 heard that many more people could have been affected, but are unable to speak up due to "confidentiality constraints". News.com.au spoke to several unhappy Ford customers who were so fed up with their PowerShift transmission cars that they traded them in. "I wanted to be rid of that car because it was a lemon," one man said. But before the deal was finalized, some customers were asked to sign a document agreeing to never take legal action or make "disparaging comments" against Ford in the future. "You agree that you will not take any actions . . . which would have the effect of interfering with or preventing the normal trading activities of Ford Australia or any other authorized Ford dealer," states the document, which news.com.au has obtained. "This offer is subject to being kept strictly confidential between you and Ford Australia," the document said. This kind of agreement is highly unusual, says Diane Chapman -- diane@bannisterlaw.com.au -- from Bannister Law, the firm launching the class action. "Usually when you trade in a car you don't have to sign an NDA," Ms Chapman told news.com.au. "It's a bit of a threatening document for someone who doesn't have any legal understanding. Most people wouldn't know they need to get legal advice," she said. "That just indicates that there is a real problem with the vehicles and Ford don't want anyone to know. We're concerned that people are so desperate to get rid of these vehicles that they'll sign anything they need to do in order to be safe." While she could not put a figure on the number of faulty PowerShift transmission cars currently on the road, Ms. Chapman said Ford was yet to acknowledge the problem. "They're just putting them back in the lot and reselling them," she said. A Ford spokeswoman told news.com.au she couldn't comment on ongoing litigation, but that the company "encourages customers to work with their local dealers on their individual circumstances." The class action case against Ford is built on the experience of a Victorian woman Billie Capic who was "frightened for her life" after a power loss while driving her 2012 Focus Sport in February this year. The $29,000 car had already lost power a number of times in 2015. In October, she was unable to change gears or use reverse without difficulty. A fortnight later, she was unable to drive the vehicle faster than 80km/h. The vehicle was shaking. Then an error message showed on the dash: "Transmission overheating." Miss Capic also experienced uncontrolled movement of the car, sudden gear changes and gear-skipping. The class action lawsuit alleges the cars are not of acceptable quality, as defined under Australian Consumer Law and that Ford knew of the problems. The vehicles have never been recalled. The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchase price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated damages. The cost of refunding 70,000 cars at an average price of $25,000 would be $1.75 billion. FORD MOTOR: Car Woes Blamed on Female Plaintiffs' Driving Skills ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Sullivan, writing for News.com.au, reports that it's a cliche so worn, it's almost comical -- women are bad drivers. That old stereotype is at the centre of a potential billion-dollar class action case against Ford over 70,000 allegedly dodgy cars. Thousands of disgruntled Ford customers were set to begin legal proceedings on June 29 against the company, accusing it of misleading and deceptive conduct in selling 22 different models of Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport vehicles between 2011 and this year. The affected models are equipped with the Ford PowerShift transmission, which promises to deliver "acceleration much smoother than a conventional automatic". "The dual clutch transmission has some of the features of a manual gearbox but it drives like an automatic," AutoExpert's John Cadogan said. "It's meant to function exactly like an automatic." But cars with Ford PowerShift transmission have been nicknamed "shutterboxes" by unhappy customers because they shudder and jerk unexpectedly. When Leanne Glasser first drove the Ford Fiesta PowerShift she bought for her daughter Dani's 17th birthday in 2010, she knew something was wrong. "The car would shudder at the intersection. You couldn't make a turn confidently because you didn't know what it was going to do," Mrs. Glasser told news.com.au. "My husband tried [driving the car] and he wasn't happy. He phoned Ford and they said, 'No, it's fine. It just needs to learn the driver'. We thought that was odd," she said. Dani, now 22, had just acquired her license and was nervous about driving the car, but persevered for three years, avoiding long trips and highways. "Then one day, the car stalled mid-drive," Mrs. Glasser said. "It went from 60km/h to 10km/h while my daughter was driving on a busy road. The guy behind her nearly hit her and he got out of the car and he was furious with her. "She was on the side of the road shaking and crying. She wouldn't drive the car because she didn't feel safe." During multiple conversations with Ford staff, both Mr. and Mrs. Glasser were told their daughter's driving ability was the problem. "I said to Ford, 'My daughter's life is in your hands'. They said 'It's the way you have to drive the car. You're not understanding how the car drives, it needs to learn the driver'. We'll never touch a Ford again," Mrs. Glasser said. She's now one of the plaintiffs in the class action case launching on June 29 by Bannister Law. "Ford customers are disappointed at the way they are being treated when they report the problems with their transmissions and gearboxes to their dealers," said Diane Chapman from Bannister Law. "Overwhelmingly, they are being told they are not driving their vehicles properly, that it is their fault and they are being made to feel stupid." On the Ford Class Action Facebook page, other women claim they have also been told their driving is the cause of their car problems. "I fought with them for 10 months about it and I was belittled and made to feel like an idiot," one woman wrote. "Comments like 'it's probably the way you drive' and 'let me explain to you how a gearbox works', like I'm some kind of idiot. I felt like because I was a women they were suggesting that a) my driving is poor and b) I must not know how a car works. It was not until my fiance (male) took the car in and spoke to them that they even acknowledge the issue." News.com.au understands these are not isolated cases and several other female plaintiffs were told similar things by Ford staff. In a statement to news.com.au, a Ford spokeswoman defended the company's PowerShift technology. "Ford's PowerShift transmission uses an advanced configuration that provides exceptional powertrain efficiency, along with the potential for unique shift feel compared with conventional automatics," she said. "While we cannot comment on ongoing litigation we encourage customers to work with their local dealers on their individual circumstances." But Mr. Cadogan says Ford's PowerShift transmission is a new engineering idea they "managed not to perfect". "The problem lies with the clutch packs in the transmissions. The packs are under-engineered and they keep failing," he said. "There are significant loads on car transmissions and they need to be designed for durability. These transmissions are absolutely not compatible with that concept in mind." The class action case against Ford is built on the experience of a Victorian woman Billie Capic who was "frightened for her life" after a power loss while driving her 2012 Focus Sport in February this year. The $29,000 car had already lost power a number of times in 2015. In October, she was unable to change gears or use reverse without difficulty. A fortnight later, she was unable to drive the vehicle faster than 80km/h. The vehicle was shaking. Then an error message showed on the dash: "Transmission overheating." Miss Capic also experienced uncontrolled movement of the car, sudden gear changes and gear-skipping. The class action lawsuit alleges the cars are not of acceptable quality, as defined under Australian Consumer Law and that Ford knew of the problems. The vehicles have never been recalled. The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchase price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated damages. The cost of refunding 70,000 cars at an average price of $25,000 would be $1.75 billion. GALT, CA: "Fisher" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- Rod Fisher, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. City of Galt, Defendant, Case No. 2:16- at-00719 (E.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Barreiro worked for the City of Galt for 3 years without being paid overtime compensation. Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 GAW MINERS: "Audet" Sues over Investment Fraud ---------------------------------------------- Denis Marc Audet, Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, And Jason Vargas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Homero Joshua Garza, Stuart A. Fraser, Gaw Miners, LLC, and Zenminer, LLC, (d/b/a Zen Cloud), Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00940 (D. Conn., June 15, 2015), seeks damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. Defendants sold products and investment contracts they claimed would yield profits from mining or otherwise investments in virtual currency. This turned out to be a scam, similar to a Ponzi scheme and Plaintiff lost substantially as a result. Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 S. Main St., Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel: (860) 493-6292 Fax: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: mkindall@izardnobel.com rizard@izardnobel.com - and - Marc Seltzer, Esq. Kathryn Hoek, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 789-3100 Fax: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com khoek@susmangodfrey.com - and - Seth Ard, Esq. Matthew Allen, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019-6022 Tel: (212) 336-8330 Fax: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: mallen@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com GOOD TREATS: Faces "Rhoten" Suit Alleging Labor Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- KAITLYN V. RHOTEN, v. GOOD TREATS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation; GOOD TREATS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation dba DUNKIN DONUTS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. : BC624911 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles-Central, June 23, 2016), alleges violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ali R. Moghaddami, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALI R. MOGHADDAMI 333 E. Glenoaks Blvd., Ste. 202 Glendale, CA 91207 Phone: (818) 500-4111 Fax: (818) 500-4144 H&M MAINTENANCE: "Duran" Suit Alleges FLSA, Co. Wage Act "Breach" ------------------------------------------------------------- AARON DURAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. H&M MAINTENANCE, LLC; CBRE, INC.; 1290 BROADWAY, LLC; and MICHAEL TREAT, an individual, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01568 (D. Col., June 21, 2016), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers. H&M Maintenance LLC provides building maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Culver, Esq. BENEZRA & CULVER, P.C. 633 17th Street, Suite 2610 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 716-0254 E-mail: jaculver@bc-law.com - and - Gregory A. Hall, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. HALL 3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80206 Phone: (303) 320-0584 E-mail: gregory@federallaw.com - and - Raja Raghunath, Esq. WORKPLACE RIGHTS PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF DENVER STURM COLLEGE OF LAW 2255 E. Evans Ave., Rm. 463A Denver CO 80208 Phone: (720) 808-1231 E-mail: raghunathlawfirm@gmail.com HALYARD HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Halyard Health, Inc. ("Halyard" or the "Company"), Kimberly-Clark Corporation ("Kimberly-Clark") and certain of the companies' officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-05093, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired Kimberly-Clark securities on or after February 25, 2013 and subsequently received Halyard securities pursuant to Kimberly- Clark's spin-off of Halyard, effective as of October 31, 2014; and/or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired Halyard securities between October 21, 2014 and April 29, 2016, both dates inclusive (collectively, the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Halyard securities during the Class Period, you have until August 29, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Halyard provides health and healthcare supplies and solutions worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Surgical and Infection Prevention (S&IP), and Medical Devices. Halyard markets its products directly to hospitals and other healthcare providers, as well as through third-party distribution channels. Prior to October 2014, Halyard was the Health Care operating segment of Kimberly-Clark, a manufacturer of personal care, consumer tissue, and professional products. Kimberly-Clark's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "KMB." On October 7, 2014, Kimberly-Clark announced the details for the completion of the spin-off of its Health Care segment as Halyard Health, Inc., advising its shareholders that they would receive one share of Halyard Health common stock for every eight shares of Kimberly-Clark common stock held as of the close of trading on October 23, 2014, the record date for the spin-off. In late 2013, an outbreak of the Ebola virus began in Guinea, subsequently spreading to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and other West African nations. In August 2014, after meeting with health ministers from eleven countries, the World Health Organization designated the outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, a rarely-used designation that invokes legal measures on disease prevention, surveillance, control, and response by 194 signatory countries. On September 30, 2014, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared the first case of Ebola virus in the United States. As awareness of the Ebola epidemic grew, demand surged for the personal protective equipment -- i.e., eye shields, face masks and disposable gowns -- made by Kimberly-Clark's Health Care segment and subsequently by Halyard, including the Company's MICROCOOL surgical gowns. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's MICROCOOL surgical gowns consistently failed effectiveness tests and failed to meet industry standards; (ii) Kimberly-Clark and Halyard had knowingly provided defective MICROCOOL surgical gowns to U.S. workers during the Ebola crisis; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 1, 2016, 60 Minutes reported that Kimberly-Clark and Halyard had knowingly provided defective surgical gowns to U.S. workers at the height of the Ebola crisis. A Company insider claimed that Halyard's MICROCOOL surgical gowns were prone to leaks and did not consistently meet the industry safety standards for the treatment of Ebola, but that Kimberly-Clark and Halyard had nonetheless "aggressively" marketed the MICROCOOL gowns to hospitals during the epidemic. On this news, Halyard stock fell $1.21, or 4.3%, to close at $26.95 on May 2, 2016. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. HARRIS MARTIN: Aug. 1 Status Conference Set in Talcum Powder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin reports that a status conference was held recently in a class action lawsuit pending in Illinois federal court, at which time the court discussed discovery dispute procedures with the parties in the case, which accuses Johnson & Johnson defendants of deceptive and fraudulent business practices with regard to its talcum powder product Baby Powder. In a May 19 minute entry, Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois noted that the next status conference is set for Aug. 1. Plaintiff Barbara Mihalich filed the class action complaint. HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on June 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, case no. 1:16-cv-00445, on behalf of shareholders of Hatteras Financial Corp. ("Hatteras" or the "Company") who held Hatteras securities and have been harmed by Hatteras' and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to Annaly Capital Management, Inc. ("Annaly"). On April 11, 2016, the Company announced it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which Annaly would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Hatteras through a tender offer (the "Tender Offer"). Following the Tender Offer, if more than two-thirds of the outstanding Hatteras common stock (including Hatteras shares owned by Annaly and its subsidiaries) had been tendered, Hatteras would be merged with and into an Annaly subsidiary in a "second-step" merger under the Maryland General Corporation Law, which would permit completion of the Merger without a shareholder vote if Annaly acquired the minimum two-thirds of Hatteras outstanding stock. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/HTSnotice Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Board, Hatteras shareholders could choose one of the following considerations: (1) $5.55 in cash and 0.9894 shares of Annaly common stock; (2) $15.85 in cash; or (3) 1.5226 shares of Annaly common stock. The complaint points out that, although Defendants touted that the Offer Price represented a premium of about 24% percent to the Company's 60-day volume- weighted average price of Hatteras' stock, Hatteras stock was trading over the consideration six months prior and was reaching a high of over $18.00 for nearly all of 2015. The complaint alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement ("14d-9") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on May 5, 2016 provided materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, in violation of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The 14d-9 failed to provide Hatteras' shareholders with material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed Transaction. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from June 28, 2016. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com HELIX ENERGY: Tex. Suit Claims Fair Labor Standards Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Jordan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., Case 4:16-cv- 01808 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. provides subsea construction, inspection, maintenance, repair and salvage services to customers in the offshore natural gas and oil industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 HONEST CO: Faces Class Actions Over Product Ingredients ------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Property Casualty360, reports that The Honest Co. has been hit with about a dozen class actions claiming it's anything but honest when it comes to the ingredients in its products. Most of the suits allege that its laundry detergent, dish soap and multiple-surface cleaner contain sodium lauryl sulfate, which can irritate the skin, despite statements by the company that they don't use the harsh chemical. Other suits have been brought over its infant formula and sunscreen. Two suits also name actress Jessica Alba, who co-founded The Honest Co. in 2012 as a healthier alternative to most baby, cosmetic and household products. Plaintiffs lawyers have moved to coordinate most of the suits into multidistrict litigation in Los Angeles, near the company's Santa Monica, California, headquarters. An attorney for the company, William Donovan, a partner at the Santa Monica, California, office of Cooley, supported the move, which the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was set to take up at its July 28 hearing in Seattle. But in a May 3 filing, he said the company "vigorously denies the claims and allegations." The suits come as The Honest Co., valued at about $1.7 billion, has been working this year to go public. On March 10, The Wall Street Journal published an article citing two independent lab tests that found sodium lauryl sulfate in The Honest Co.'s laundry detergent, despite the company's claims that it didn't contain the chemical. Specifically, the tests found that sodium coco sulfate, the ingredient in The Honest Co.'s detergent that it claims is gentler on skin, actually contains sodium lauryl sulfate. On its blog, The Honest Co. accused The Wall Street Journal of publishing "factual inaccuracies and misleading statements." In comparing the two ingredients, the company said that "though both are derived from coconut oil, their molecular makeup is quite different." The lawsuits are the latest series of mass tort actions to come out of a news report. Class actions alleging that four brands mislabeled their "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" were filed following a Feb. 16 article on Bloomberg.com that used independent studies to test the products. And an episode of "60 Minutes" last year spurred lawsuits over the labeling of Lumber Liquidators Inc.'s laminated wood flooring. In addition to the lawsuits before the multidistrict litigation panel, two class actions brought in September 2015, which have since been consolidated, challenge The Honest Co.'s "natural" claims in several of its products. They also claim its sunscreen doesn't work at all, leaving people with severe sunburns. And an April 6 lawsuit brought by the Organic Consumers Association claims its organic premium infant formula isn't actually organic. That lawsuit, the company wrote on its blog, "we wholeheartedly believe will be dismissed." HYUNDAI MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sunroof Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. on June 28 disclosed that on June 24, 2016, a federal court in California denied in large part Hyundai Motor America's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiffs' Complaint in a class action lawsuit alleging that Hyundai knowingly concealed from consumers a defect that causes the vehicles' panoramic sunroofs to spontaneously shatter. The lawsuit is captioned Glenn v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 8:15-cv- 02052-DOC-KES, and it is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Hyundai models involved in the lawsuit include: 2011-16 Sonata 2011-16 Tucson 2011-16 Veloster 2013-16 Santa Fe and Santa Fe Sport 2013-16 Elantra GT Potential class members who own or lease one of the affected Hyundai vehicles listed above may contact Berger & Montague, P.C. to learn more about the claims alleged and their rights to seek compensation for damages they have suffered. Berger & Montague, P.C. is especially interested in speaking with consumers whose panoramic sunroofs have spontaneously shattered in their affected Hyundai vehicles as listed above. The Berger & Montague, P.C. attorneys prosecuting this class action lawsuit are: Shanon Carson, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-4601 Email: elechtzin@bm.net Notably, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs have stated claims for violations of the consumer protection laws of Alabama, New Hampshire, Texas and Washington -- the states in which the Named Plaintiffs purchased their Hyundai vehicles. Hyundai had argued that Plaintiffs' allegations based on fraudulent omissions should be dismissed because, it asserted, Plaintiffs did not allege that they ever saw or relied on any statement by Hyundai, or would have seen any disclosure of alleged omission had one been included. The Court rejected this argument and noted that each of the Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that they researched their vehicle before their purchase and that they would not have bought their vehicle or would have paid less had they known about the defective panoramic sunroofs. The Court also declined to dismiss Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim. Although Hyundai argued that Plaintiffs could not pursue this claim because they did not avail themselves of the informal dispute resolution procedure it provided in the warranty, the Court stated that this was not grounds for dismissal. Finally, the Court declined to dismiss claims as to models of Hyundai vehicles that were not purchased by Plaintiffs, finding that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that all models of Hyundai vehicles with panoramic sunroofs are sufficiently similar. The Court stated: "Plaintiffs allege all the models' sunroofs were made with tempered glass, thinned to improve fuel efficiency, and coated with ceramic paint . . . Even more, plaintiffs include numerous complaints lodged by Hyundai owners and lessees with the [National Highway Traffic Safety Commission]. Taken together, and taken as true, these allegations are sufficient to show a similarity between plaintiffs' Hyundai models and the Hyundai Sonata and Hyundai Veloster." This class action lawsuit will now proceed to the discovery phase of the case. About Berger & Montague, P.C. Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action litigation. With over 60 attorneys, the firm concentrates its practice in class action litigation, including consumer protection, securities fraud, whistleblower and false claims actions, antitrust, labor and employment rights, and environmental and mass torts, and has recovered over $30 billion for its clients and the classes they represent. INTERCEPT PHARMA: September 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01123-NRB CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("INTERCEPT") BETWEEN JANUARY 9, 2014 AND JANUARY 10, 2014, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on September 8, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 21A, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal amount of $55,000,000.00, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and Plaintiffs' expenses in connection with this Litigation should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF INTERCEPT BETWEEN JANUARY 9, 2014 AND JANUARY 10, 2014, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement ("Notice of Pendency") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Intercept Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30217, College Station, TX 77842- 3217, or at www.interceptsecuritieslitigation.com If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail (postmarked no later than October 5, 2016) or submitted electronically no later than October 5, 2016, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion, in writing, to Intercept Securities Litigation, Exclusions, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, 3301 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, such that it is postmarked no later than August 11, 2016. All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class in response to the Notice of Pendency will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation. Any objection to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee and expense application must be received by each of the following recipients no later than August 11, 2016: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP TOR GRONBORG or TRIG SMITH 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Counsel for Defendants: WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP JAMES W. PRENDERGAST 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above or by an e-mail to Lead Counsel at interceptclaims@rgrdlaw.com. Copies of certain pleadings and other documents filed in the Litigation can also be found at www.interceptsecuritieslitigation.com DATED: May 23, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JTEKT CORP: Faces "Lane" Suit Alleging Antitrust Law Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Saratoga Lane, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JTEKT Corporation, JTEKT Automotive North, America, Inc. d/b/a JTEKT North America, Inc., Showa Corporation, American Showa, Inc., Yamada Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Yamada North America, Inc., Defendants, 2:13-cv-01901-MOB- MKM (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2016), alleges that the Defendants violated antitrust laws by entering into a continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Electric Powered Steering Assemblies sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. The Defendants are global manufacturers and suppliers of Electric Powered Steering Assemblies. The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 38500 Woodward Ave; Ste. 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Phone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Phone: (207) 791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com jmermin@preti.com msmith@preti.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Phone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whose@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com - and - M. John Dominguez, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Phone: (561) 515-1431 - and - Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 838-7797 - and - David A. Young, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW; Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas C. Bright, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105-2835 Phone: (415) 777-2230 - and - Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South; Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 687-1980 - and - Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East; Suite 211 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (917) 438-9102 - and - R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Lisa Saveri, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 217-6810 KRAFT HEINZ: "Agles" Mislabelling Suit transferred to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Charlene Agles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01552 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 15, 2016, and assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00849. Defendant labeled its products "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" despite claims that it does not contain such. The Kraft Heinz Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Kraft maintains co- headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Chicago, Illinois. Kraft manufactures over 200 food brands, including its cheese products. Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Quentin Alexandre Roberts, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 398-8700 Fax: (415) 398-8704 Email: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com qroberts@finkelsteinthompson.com Defendant is represented by: Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 239-5152 Fax: (213) 239-5162 Email: klee@jenner.com - and - Dean Nicholas Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 222-9350 Email: dpanos@jenner.com LATERAL LINK: Former Recruiter Loses Misclassification Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Nell Gluckman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that a lawsuit filed in May against the legal recruiting firm Lateral Link was dismissed from state court in Los Angeles, court documents show. DeAnne Ozaki, a former recruiter with Lateral Link, had accused the firm of misclassifying its California workers as independent contractors. As a result, Ms. Ozaki claimed, workers were underpaid and denied certain entitlements. Ms. Ozaki's lawyer, Cody Knight, who runs an employment boutique in Los Angeles, filed a request for dismissal with prejudice on June 27, which was automatically granted. "We've dismissed the court case in favor of proceeding solely in arbitration," Mr. Knight said. He declined to comment on the status or nature of the arbitration. Ms. Ozaki's complaint was filed on behalf of herself and other unnamed Lateral Link employees in California under the state's Private Attorney General Act, which allows for collective actions. She was a recruiter at Lateral Link from October 2012 to March 2015, the complaint said. Before that, Ms. Ozaki led the trademark division at Universal Music Group. She was previously of counsel at Latham & Watkins and a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, according to her LinkedIn profile. Lateral Link's founder and managing principal, Michael Allen, said in an email on June 29 that Ozaki's claims were meritless. A lawyer for the company, Gordon Rees partner Christopher Cato, said in an email that the decision by Ms. Ozaki's counsel to drop the complaint had "vindicated" Lateral Link's position. In another case that pitted Lateral Link against its former recruiters, the firm filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in a federal court in Los Angeles in May. Lateral Link had accused two former recruiters in Chicago of stealing client data to start a rival agency. That case is also continuing in arbitration. LKM ENTERPRISES: "Mahrous" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Hassan Mahrous, Hamed Yousef and Murad Mubarak, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LKM Enterprises, LLC, LKM Convenience, LLC and Lenny Motwani, Case No. 2:16-cv- 10141 (E.D. La., June 14, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, plus attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate convenience stores under the names "Brothers Food Mart" and/or "Magnolia Express" where the Plaintiffs worked as cooks, cashiers and general store operators. Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Tel: (504) 599-5953 Fax: (888) 988-6499 Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net - and - M. Abdullah, Esq. Daniel J. Carr, Esq. Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA ABDULLAH & CARR, LLC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4610 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 523-2434 Fax: (504) 523-2464 Email: jpeiffer@praclawfirm.com dabdullah@praclawfirm.com dcarr@praclawfirm.com - and - H. Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com - and - Ryan R.C. Hicks, Esq. Peter B. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 3700 Buffalo Speedway Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 338-2560 Email: rhicks@schneiderwallace.com pschneider@schneiderwallace.com MODELO HEALTH: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Under Fair Labor Standards Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLARA IVETTE COYA, ROSALIA HIDALGO ZALDIVAR, WALKIRIA MARIA PEREZ LOPEZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MODELO HEALTH CARE CENTER INC., TULIO QUIRANTES JR, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-22335-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. MODELO HEALTH CARE CENTER INC. is an assisted living facility. The Plaintiffs are represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com MORGAN STANLEY: "Zajonc" Labor Case Transferred to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Zajonc, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-05563 (N.D. Cal., December 19, 2014), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 14, 2016, and assigned Case No. 9:16-cv-80988. Morgan Stanley employed Plaintiff as a Financial Advisor Associate. Zajonc claims to be denied overtime pay. Morgan Stanley is a financial services company that provides brokerage and related products and services to millions of investors nationwide, where Plaintiff worked as a Client Services Associate. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in New York, New York. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in New York, New York. It is a partially owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley is a Delaware corporation that is a bank holding company registered with the New York Stock Exchange, among other regulator agencies and authorities with principal place of business in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley is a parent company of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Plaintiff is represented by: Cara B. Chomski, Esq. Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN GOLDEN, LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 245-1000 Email: jms@outtengolden.com - and - Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Jason Conway, Esq. Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Tel: (914) 997-5656 Fax: (914) 997-2444 Email: fran@klafterolsen.com jason.conway@klafterolsen.com seth@klafterolsen.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq. Susan Hilary Stern, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tel: (561) 447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com sstern@shavitzlaw.com - and - Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Julia Rabinovich, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: (415) 638-8800 Fax: (415) 638-8810 - and - Michael John Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, LLP 830 3rd Avenue 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (800) 616-4000 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com NANT CAPITAL: "Solak" Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------ John Solak, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant, Tribune Publishing Company Plaintiff, v. Michael W. Ferro, Jr., Eddy Hartenstein, Justin Dearborn, David Dibble, Ellen Taus, Renetta Mccann, Philip Franklin, Richard Reck, Carol Crenshaw, Donald Tang, Patrick Soonshiong and Nant Capital, LLC, Defendants and Tribune Publishing Company, Nominal Defendant, Case 12464 (Del. Ch., June 15, 2016), seeks damages, costs and disbursements of this action, attorney and expert fees and such other and further relief for breach of fiduciary duty. Tribune has been one of the leading print media conglomerates in the United States, publisher of, among others, the Baltimore Sun, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Sun Sentinel. Gannett Co. proposed to the Tribune Board to purchase all outstanding Tribune shares for $12.25 a share, a significant premium over the prior day's $6.86 closing price. The Tribune Board consistently evades such offers and favored the offer of Nant Capital, LLC, a much lesser offer, thus resulting in doubts about the company's fiscal directions. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. Adam Warden, Esq. SAXENA WHITE, P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (888) 458-9055 Email: jwhite@saxenawhite.com awarden@saxenawhite.com jstein@saxenawhite.com - and - Mary. S. Thomas, Esq. Stuart M. Grant, Esq. Michael J. Barry, Esq. Mary S. Thomas, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 - and - Katherine M. Ryan, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 558-5516 Facsimile: (484) 450-2582 NCR CORP: "Meadows" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ Michael Meadows, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NCR Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-6221 (E.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. NCR Corporation is a provider of computers products and technical support services including Automated Teller Machines products and services in the state of Illinois and across the nation. Plaintiff worked as a technician at their Illinois location. He claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: 312-233-1550 Fax: 312-233-1560 NII HOLDINGS: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- TO: All Persons and Entities that, During the Period from February 25, 2010 Through February 27, 2014, Inclusive ("Class Period"), Purchased or Otherwise Acquired the Publicly Traded Securities of NII Holdings, Inc. and/or NII Capital Corp. and Who Were Damaged Thereby. The Eligible Securities Are NII Holdings, Inc. Common Stock ("NII Stock") (ISIN: US62913F2011), as Well as the Following Debt Securities ("NII Bonds"): (i) 7.625% NII Bonds, Due April 1, 2021 (ISIN: US67021BAE92); (ii) 8.875% NII Bonds, Due December 15, 2019 (ISIN: US67021BAC37); and (iii) 10% NII Bonds, Due August 15, 2016 (ISIN: US67021BAD10). Certain Persons and Entities are Excluded from the Foregoing Definition of the Class, as set forth in Detail in the Full Notice Mentioned Below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the class set forth above (the "Class"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class Representatives Danica Pension, Livsforsikringsaktieselskab, Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S, Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers Pension Plan, IBEW Local No. 58 / SMC NECA Funds, and Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund (collectively, "Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the Class, and Defendants Steven P. Dussek, Steven M. Shindler, and Gokul Hemmady (the "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action in the amount of $41,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314 at 10:00 a.m. on September 16, 2016 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (a) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 18, 2016; (c) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and any interest earned thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (d) approve Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received the full Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting the website dedicated to this Action: In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173009 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (866) 905-8128 www.niisecuritieslitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. Mark S. Arisohn, Esq. Serena Hallowell, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com (888) 219-6877 Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 www.ktmc.com (610) 667-7706 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received on or before September 28, 2016. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that it is received on or before August 26, 2016. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received on or before August 26, 2016. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. DATED: JUNE 13, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiff Landowners Win Map Act Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Lathrop, Esq. -- tonylathrop@mvalaw.com -- of Moore & Van Allen PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that what began several years ago as a defeated attempt at a class action against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) ultimately resulted in a win in June for plaintiff landowners in Kirby v. NCDOT (No. 56PA14-2). On June 10, 2016, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the State's restrictions placed on property owners under the Roadway Corridor Official Map Act (Map Act) constitute a taking of their property, requiring the state to compensate the landowners appropriately. The case was brought originally as a putative class action on behalf of nearly 800 landowners who own property subject to the Map Act's restrictions within the area of the Northern Beltway highway project planned near Winston-Salem, NC. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in Beroth Oil Co. v. NCDOT (Beroth II), 757 S.E.2d 466 (N.C. 2014), aff'g in part and vacating in part Beroth Oil Co. v. NCDOT (Beroth I), 725 S.E.2d 651 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012), on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a class under N.C. Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because individual issues in the case predominate over common issues. Subsequently, the Kirby plaintiffs filed separate complaints against the NCDOT, which were designated as exceptional and consolidated for case management. A Taking Without Just Compensation Under the Map Act, once the state designates a highway corridor for a planned project by filing a map, owners of property within the highway corridor are prohibited from improving, developing or subdividing the property indefinitely, unless they follow administrative procedures to obtain relief from the restrictions. The Kirby court's decision hinged on whether the Map Act's restrictions on property are an exercise of the police power, where property is regulated to prevent injury to the public, or an exercise of eminent domain, where property is taken for public use because it is beneficial to the public. An exercise of police power generally is not compensable, whereas a taking via eminent domain must be compensated. The NC Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals' assessment that the indefinite restrictions placed upon property owners under the Map Act "are not a valid, regulatory exercise of police power," as the NCDOT argued. The Court reasoned that the "societal benefits envisioned by the Map Act are not designed primarily to prevent injury or protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Furthermore, the provisions of the Map Act that allow landowners relief from the statutory scheme are inadequate to safeguard their constitutionally protected property rights." In the eyes of the appellate courts, the Map Act is a "cost-controlling mechanism" that allows the State to decrease the price it will have to pay for the land required to execute future highway projects. The Supreme Court punctuated its analysis with the fundamental nature of constitutional property rights: "From the very beginnings of our republic we have jealously guarded against the governmental taking of property." Individual Determinations & Lessons in Class Certification The NC Supreme Court sent the Kirby case back to the trial court to conduct Individual inquiries into the appropriate amount of compensation for each landowner. The just compensation due to each landowner will be determined by the market value of the property before the NCDOT's taking (i.e., before the corridor map was recorded) and after the taking. This calculation must consider the impact of the restrictions on each plaintiff's fundamental rights and any effect of the reduction in ad valorem taxes provided for under the statute. Although the case did not proceed as a class action, Beroth I and Beroth II have contributed meaningfully to North Carolina class action jurisprudence interpreting N.C. Rule 23, which is not as well-developed as the law surrounding its federal counterpart, Fed. Civ. P. 23. The Beroth cases reiterated the trial court's discretion in class certification matters, as well as the importance of the predominance factor in determining class certification. In upholding the denial of plaintiffs' class certification motion, Beroth I noted that "the predominance requirement is 'the primary issue' upon which courts from other jurisdictions have based their decisions in ruling on motions for class certification," and "[t]he trial court is justified in denying the motion [for class certification] where the party seeking class certification fails to meet this requirement." In Beroth II, the NC Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification because individual issues predominate over common issues. Beroth II also delved further into the class certification inquiry, holding that it is inappropriate to analyze the substantive merits of plaintiffs' claims at the class certification stage. The trial court had analyzed several aspects of plaintiffs' takings claim, discerning whether the "substantial impairment" test or the "ends-means" test was applicable to the case, to come to the ultimate conclusion that individual determinations need to be made for each property and therefore "[c]ommon issues of fact and law would not predominate." Plaintiffs argued the "substantial impairment" test should have been applied, not the "ends-means" test. The NC Supreme Court ruled, however, that "[i]n determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met." Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1974 (Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178, (1974)), and noting the state's reliance on the interpretation of Fed. R. Civ. 23, the NC Supreme Court declared: "Here both the trial court and the Court of Appeals improperly engaged in a substantive analysis of plaintiffs' arguments with regard to the nature of NCDOT's actions and the impairment of their properties." The Court went on vacate the Court of Appeals' discussion on the merits of the plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim, while affirming the denial of class certification: "As we have noted at some length, we believe that one of the trial court's fundamental errors was choosing to employ any test to determine the extent of damages suffered by all 800 landowners and whether a taking has occurred at this stage of the proceedings." North Carolina class action law continues to develop in areas where federal class action law is robust. For example, our previous post discusses the Ehrenhaus v. Baker case in which North Carolina Court of Appeals recently considered for the first time whether it is legal in a class action settlement agreement for one party to agree to pay the other's attorneys' fees and expenses. ONTARIO, CA: "Nevin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- Sylvia Nevin, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. City of Ontario, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01273 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Barreiro worked for the City of Ontario CA for 3 years without being paid overtime compensation. Plaintiff is represented by: DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244) ISAAC S. STEVENS, ESQ. (SBN 251245) JOHN H. BAKHIT, ESQ. (SBN 246643) MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A Professional Corporation 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 Email: davidm@mastagni.com istevens@mastagni.com jbakhit@mastagni.com PACSUN: Judge Grants Class Certification in PAGA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- L. John Bird, Esq. -- lbird@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on June 22, 2016, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on a motion to for class certification in the PacSun bankruptcy, Case No. 16-10882. In 2011, two plaintiffs filed actions under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. One of the Plaintiffs was granted class certification in February, 2016. After PacSun filed for bankruptcy, these plaintiffs moved for authority to file bankruptcy proofs of claim as representatives of the PAGA class for the class. It is worth noting that instances in which bankruptcy courts approve of class treatment for class-action claims is not terribly common. Often, the Court will rule that the bankruptcy claims process is just as likely to provide adequate notice and recovery to potential claimants as the class-action process -- but without the additional costs of class counsel (which is often upwards of 25% of any class recovery). As held by the Third Circuit in a prior case: "All creditors were given notice of the insolvency proceedings, and they were given the opportunity to file claims . . . Furthermore, this is not a plenary suit but a liquidation proceeding which should be concluded as expeditiously as possible . We see no indication that a class action designation would have such a result . . ." Opinion at *7-8 (quoting SEC v. Aberdeen Securities Co., 480 F.2d 1121, 1128 (3d Cir. 1973)). As Judge Silverstein rules in this case, however, "Aberdeen does not stand for the principle that class claims are, as a rule, impermissible in bankruptcy case. Opinion at *9. Instead, she looks to the Musicland factors: (1) whether the class was certified pre-petition; (2) whether the members of the putative class received notice of the bar date; and (3) whether class certification will adversely affect the administration of the estate. Opinion at *10 (citing In re Musicland Holding Corp., 362 B.R. 644, 654-55 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)). In this case, the first factor was met (the class was previously certified), the second factor was met (the Debtor limited notice to only a portion of former employees, not all employees who were members of this class, and Judge Silverstein held that regardless of whether certification occurred, she would have to address these claims, satisfying the third factor. Opinion at *12. Thus, she determined that it was appropriate that she exercise her discretion under Rule 7023. She then analyzed the elements and arguments around Federal Rule 23, determining that it was satisfied in this case. This portion of the Opinion spans pages 13-20. Ultimately, Judge Silverstein granted the motion in part, certifying nearly the exact same class as had been previously certified: Class: All hourly, non-exempt employees of PacSun working in retail locations in the State of California from March 18, 2007 through the 181st day prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition concerning Ms. Beeney's claims for: (a) failing to authorize and permit employees to take duty-free rest breaks every four hours or major fraction thereof and to compensate employees therefor; and (b) requiring employees to undergo security checks and perform closing duties off-the-clock without compensation. At the end of the day, no matter how infrequent relief of a specific type is granted, if you have met ALL of the statutory requirements and you can successfully distinguish contrary case law, you can obtain the relief you seek. In some cases it is easy -- but those cases almost always end up settling. However, a litigant will not settle unless they will get more from settling than they would after getting a Court ruling and paying their lawyers -- So if they feel certain of winning, their settlement range is much narrower than if they are uncertain of the outcome. In a case like this, where certification of a class is infrequent, settling becomes a more difficult proposition. PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP regarding In Re Petrobras Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 14-CV-9662 (JSR) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION To: (1) All purchasers who, between January 22, 2010 and July 28, 2015 (the "Class Period"), inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras ("Petrobras"), including debt securities issued by Petrobras International Finance Company S.A. ("PifCo") and/or Petrobras Global Finance B.V. ("PGF") on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") or pursuant to other domestic transactions (the "Exchange Act Class"); and (2) All purchasers who purchased or otherwise acquired debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in domestic transactions, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or a March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States before Petrobras made generally available to its security holders an earnings statement covering a period of at least twelve months beginning after the effective date of the offerings (the "Securities Act Class"). A class action lawsuit is now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") under the above caption (the "Action"). The suit is brought on behalf of investors for alleged violations of the federal securities laws by defendants for purportedly concealing a multi- year, multi-billion dollar bribery and kickback scheme. Defendants have denied the claims and maintain they are not liable for the injury alleged. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of the pendency of the Action as a class action. You may be a member of the Class whose rights might be affected by this Action. YOUR RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER: If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Petrobras, including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF, on the NYSE or pursuant to other transactions occurring in the United States during the Class Period, or purchased or otherwise acquired prior to August 11, 2014 debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in transactions occurring in the United States, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or purchased or otherwise acquired prior to May 15, 2015 debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in transactions occurring in the United States, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States, you are a member of one or both of the Classes. If you choose to remain a member of one or both of the Classes, you do not need to do anything at this time. You will automatically be included in either or both Classes unless you request exclusion in accordance with the procedure set forth below. Your decision is important for the following reasons: If you choose to remain in either or both Classes, you will be bound by all orders and judgments in this Action. Your interests are being represented at no cost to you by the representatives of the Classes and Class Counsel. Class Counsel will be awarded fees and costs only if it succeeds in obtaining a recovery from one or more defendants. You may remain a member of the Classes and elect to be represented by your own counsel at your own expense. If you retain separate counsel, you will be responsible for that counsel's fees and expenses and such counsel must enter an appearance on your behalf by filing a Notice of Appearance with the Court and mailing it to Class Counsel at the address below on or before July 29, 2016. If you exclude yourself from the Class and decide to pursue your own action individually, you may not be able to pursue certain claims due to the lapsing of the statute of limitations, including claims under Section 11 related to the May 13, 2013 offering. If you seek to share in any Class recovery, you will be required to prove your membership in either or both Classes with evidence of (i) your purchases, acquisitions and sales of Petrobras securities (including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF); (ii) that you purchased Petrobras securities in a domestic transaction and suffered resulting damages, and/or (iii) that you purchased such debt securities pursuant to or traceable to one of the registered offerings referenced above. In addition, defendants may seek to prove that you did not rely on the integrity of the market or that you had knowledge of defendants' alleged misrepresentations or omissions. If you choose to be excluded from either or both Classes, you will not be bound by any judgment, nor will you be eligible to share in any recovery that might be obtained in this Action. If you exclude yourself, you may individually pursue any legal rights that you may have against the defendants. To exclude yourself from either or both Classes, you must mail a signed letter by mail stating that you "request exclusion" from either or both of the Classes in "In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-CV-9662" postmarked no later than July 29, 2016, to: Petrobras Securities Litigation, Notice Administrator, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10280, Dublin, OH 43017-5780. Full details on how to be excluded are available at www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: This Notice is only a summary of the lawsuit. For more detailed information, including a complete list of defendants and CUSIPS of the debt securities and ADSs involved, you may contact Class Counsel, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016, (212) 661-1100, call the Notice Administrator at (855) 907-3218, or visit http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Rakoffor www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com To get a copy of this notice in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, Japanese or Chinese, visit www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE. Dated: May 9, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court for the Southern District of New York PHILADELPHIA: Appeal in "Berry" Suit Pending in Penn. S.C. ------------------------------ -------------------------- Leroy N. Berry, Lawrence H. Duppins, William J. Malizia, Jr., Aaron J. Stanford on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Petitioners v. City of Philadelphia, the Respondent, Case No. 276-EAL-2016 (Penn. Sup. Ct., July 20, 2016), is an appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from a lower court decision, Case No. 2738 CD 2015 (Phil. Cty. Ct., June 20, 2016). The Petitioners Leroy N. Berry, Lawrence H. Duppins, William J. Malizia, Jr., and Aaron J. Stanford's opening brief was due June 23, 2016. The Hon. Keith B. Quigley is the assigned Appellate Court Judge. REMCON ENTERPRISES: "Davies" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Damian Davies, Plaintiff, v. Remcon Enterprises, LLC, aka Remcon Environmental, LLC and Joshua D. Jackson, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03456 (D.N.J., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendants own and/or maintain an environmental company headquartered in Whippany, Morris County, New Jersey, where Davies was employed by Defendants, applying polyurethane into concrete walls using an air brush to waterproof them from contaminants. Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com SIMON PROPERTY: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Hall and Meagin Lewis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Simon Property Group, Inc. and Simon Property Group, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01453 (S.D. Ind., June 14, 2016), seeks overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. SPG owns and operates malls all over the country with their principal place of business located at 225 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204. Plaintiff worked as a Guest Services Manager in their Springfield, Illinois location. He claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq. Christopher S. Stake, Esq. DELANEY &DELANEY LLC 3646 N. Washington Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46205 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAWGROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@Shavitzlaw.Com cjones@Shavitzlaw.Com SPOTIFY USA: Faces Cal. Lawsuit Over Premium Subscription Service ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY INGALLS and TONY HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPOTIFY USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Case no. 4:16-cv-3533 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2016), seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, equitable relief (including but not limited to restitution), damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Automatic Purchase Renewal Law and California's Unfair Competition Law to address Defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent practices with respect to paid subscription Premium Subscription Service (PSS). Spotify is an international commercial music streaming service with more than 75 million active users worldwide. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 396-9600 Fax: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: gwade@majfw.com savila@majfw.com mcastaneda@majfw.com - and - Derek J. Meyer, Esq. LEONARDMEYER LLP 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (310) 220-0331 E-mail: rmeyer@leonardmeyerllp.com SUBARU: Certain Loss Claims Over Takata Airbags Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that certain economic loss claims against Subaru over its use of potentially dangerous Takata air bags are moving forward in Miami federal court. U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno on June 21 entered the second of several orders on motions to dismiss filed by automakers who used Takata air bags, the subject of the biggest auto recall in history. Plaintiffs across the country allege they overpaid for their cars and saw resale value drop when recalls began. Judge Moreno is also hearing separate personal injury claims related to the air bags, which have so far been linked to 10 deaths and more than 100 injuries. Judge Moreno's order on Subaru was consistent with his decision on Mazda, entered June 15. Proceeding are claims that Subaru knew about the air bag defect and fraudulently concealed it and that car owners whose air bags did not explode still lost money. But the judge dismissed claims made under New Jersey law because the named plaintiffs did not live or buy their cars there. He also tossed unjust enrichment claims, finding that because the named plaintiffs did not buy their cars directly from Subaru, they could not allege the automaker had improperly lined its pockets. "We are pleased that the court sustained several of our claims and found that the defective air bags do not have to blow up for there to be a defect," said lead plaintiffs counsel Peter Prieto of Podhurst Orseck in Miami. "We're also pleased that our allegations of knowledge on the part of the automakers were found to be sufficient and plausible." Plaintiffs counsel will review Judge Moreno's order to determine what claims will be included in the next amended complaint, Mr. Prieto said, adding that they will also determine whether additional class representatives should be added. Subaru did not respond to a request for comment by deadline. Besides Subaru and Mazda, defendants in the case are Takata, BMW, Ford, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Judge Moreno in December denied motions to dismiss federal law claims that Takata and Honda conspired to hide air bag defects. More than 28 million Takata air bag inflators have already been recalled, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced plans in May to support the recall of at least 35 million more. THERANOS INC: C.M. & S.G. Sues Over Fake Testing Machine ----------------------------------------------------- C.M. and S.G., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Theranos, Inc. and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-03349 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks actual, treble, punitive damages and any other form of monetary relief, restitution, disgorgement and other equitable relief, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed under the law, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. Theranos, Inc. introduced a new procedure for drawing and testing blood by capturing only a few drops in a tiny, proprietary vial and analyzing the sample on a device it named "Edison." The latter was supposed to be able to run dozens of tests using a single miniscule sample, generate results within minutes instead of days or weeks and deliver results right to a patient's smartphone using a Theranos developed app. It partnered with Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., an operator of a nationwide drugstore chain. Their machine, however, did not work and they engaged third party laboratories to do the tests secretly. Plaintiffs availed of such services and claimed flawed test results. Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David Stein, Esq. Clay Stockton, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com rcs@classlawgroup.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com PREMIER CRU: Settles Wine Class Action, July 27 Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Simmone Shah, writing for The Daily Californian, reports that a settlement decision on the Premier Cru class action lawsuit was reached May 16, affecting approximately 4,450 Premier Cru customers who were left without the bottles of wine they paid for before the company declared bankruptcy Jan. 8. Michael Kasolas, the Premier Cru trustee, was given responsibility for liquidating assets and determining allocations of funds after a creditor's hearing Feb. 24. On March 29, he filed a motion to liquidate Premier Cru assets and sell more than 78,800 bottles of wine, using the assets to repay creditors. While Mr. Kasolas stated that the majority of the wines stored with Premier Cru were owned by the estate, many Premier Cru customers, such as Michael Podolsky, said the bottles belonged to the customers who paid for their orders but never received them. Mr. Podolsky filed a class action lawsuit against Mr. Kasolas in April. Both parties reached a settlement because resolving the dispute would "consume many months or years of litigation, at much greater expense and at significant risk of loss," according to a court document. During this time, the document stated, the cost to continue the court battle would extinguish the trust funds, making it difficult to continue storing the bottles. The document further stated that "there might be nothing left of value to recover" when the case was finished. "Judge Lafferty, the bankruptcy judge, suggested the parties entered judiciary mediation, and we negotiated in that context to a resolution," said Merle Meyers, an attorney for Meyers Law Group, one of the firms representing Premier Cru customers. The mediation occurred intermittently from May 3 to May 16, when a settlement was reached. The lawsuit arrived after several complainants sued Premier Cru for almost $70 million in October 2015, claiming the company failed to deliver purchased wine. Shortly after, Fox Ortega Enterprises -- the company which owned Premier Cru -- filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The wine in Mr. Kasolas' possession will be sold to one or more bulk buyers, with the proceeds being distributed to members of the class action suit. Customers whose orders were available for shipping or pickup by Jan. 8, 2016 will be able to redeem their purchased bottles. The amount customers will receive varies, depending on factors such as the number of class members who request to be excluded from the class and the selling price of the bottles. The law firms representing the customers, Meyers Law Group and Chavez & Gertler LLP, are seeking 25 percent of the settlement, an award of up to $650,000 dollars to cover attorney fees and costs. While the settlement marks closure for Premier Cru, the FBI is still investigating Premier Cru owner John Fox for an alleged Ponzi scheme. Mr. Fox filed for personal bankruptcy Feb. 8. FBI spokesperson Prentice Danner declined to comment on the lawsuit, but added that it is still an ongoing investigation. A hearing will be held July 27 at the Oakland Bankruptcy court to approve the proposed settlement. PRIDE MOBILITY: Becomes Bellwether Antitrust Class Action in UK --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Reynolds, Esq. -- mreynolds@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that much ink and conference time have been spent discussing it, but now we have a real example of an antitrust class action in the UK. This is the first under the 2015 rules allowing such claims, Schedule 8 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) confirmed on June 21 that the case had been started when it published a "notice of an application to commence collective proceedings under section 47B of the [UK] Competition Act 1998." This application represents the first step in the process. Under it, the proposed class representative is seeking an order permitting her to act as the class representative, determining that the case is suitable to be heard as a class action, and deciding that it should be opt-out (as opposed to opt-in). Another key issue at this initial stage will be whether the proposed representative has adequate financing to bring the claim. It was widely assumed that the first such case would be based on a cartel fining decision from an antitrust regulator (likely the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or the European Commission). Instead, the case rests on a 2014 decision by the CMA's predecessor, the Office of Fair Trading, finding the potential defendant in this class case, Pride Mobility Products Limited, to have engaged in a type of online resale price maintenance (RPM) in relation to mobility scooters. The benefit for the class in basing the claim on this regulatory decision is that it does not have to prove liability for an infringement of competition law; that has already been established. Nevertheless, as an aside, it's notable that that decision itself was somewhat controversial (or at least cutting- edge at the time) since it equated a ban on advertising online prices below Pride's recommended retail prices with RPM. The CMA, however, has not been deterred, and subsequently several cases have been decided on the same lines. A bellwether for UK antitrust class actions. The CAT's view on the Pride case will be very closely watched and it is likely significantly to impact whether future claims under the class procedure are brought. A previous type of class procedure, replaced by the 2015 rules, allowed for a "specified body" to bring a consumer claim on behalf of two or more individuals to seek monetary damages for an infringement of competition law. Only one such body was ever specified, and it only ever brought one claim, relating to price fixing of replica football/soccer kits. The procedure was widely seen as a failure. How closely will class actions in the UK parallel those in the United States? The UK's new class procedures were expressly designed to address the shortcomings of the prior regime and produce a significant number of class action cases, but there was intense debate in the period up to adoption. Therefore, safeguards were included to stop what are seen as the excesses of the U.S. class action system (including the bringing of unmeritorious claims, the availability of treble damages, and the use of contingency fee arrangements by lawyers). Hence, the CAT will now in this first stage of the case very closely scrutinise the various points mentioned above (suitability of the representative and of the case for class treatment, etc.). Nevertheless, U.S. practice and arguments, where there are parallels, are likely to figure strongly. What about the money? The allegation is that up to 34,000 Pride customers, who bought mobility scooters between 2010 and 2012, may each be entitled to around a GBP200 refund, or even more in specific cases. The potential claim has been valued at up to a total of GBP7.7 million, including interest. It's not known on what financial basis the lawyers are acting. However, under the regime, lawyers cannot use DBAs (damages based, or contingency, agreements). This means that third party funding (which is allowed) is likely to play a significant role, with conditional fee arrangements being put in place. The UK's normal "loser pays costs" rule does apply, so an unsuccessful claimant will be liable for the defendant's costs. After the event (ATE) insurance can be used, but the premiums cannot be recovered from the losing party. Small business fast-track claims are playing out at the same time, on a smaller stage. Although high profile, this class action case is not the only cutting-edge development in competition litigation currently before the CAT. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced other changes, one of which was the introduction of fast-track B2B claims, aimed at making it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to make competition law challenges before the CAT. The first two of these settled at an early stage, but the third (the Socrates case) is currently proceeding. A big issue in the fast-track procedure is the ability of the CAT to cap recoverable costs against the loser. The CAT has taken a view on that issue already in the Socrates case and has set the cap on the claimant's recoverable costs (against the defendant) at GBP200,000 and the cap on the defendant's recoverable costs from the claimant at GBP350,000 (both sides can spend more if they wish, but could not recover it from the other). For most companies at the smaller end of the "small and medium enterprises" scale in the UK, this level of cost risk is very high indeed, and is likely to discourage many from making use of the procedure. The CAT may have to rethink these levels if it wants more claims to be made. REEL GROUP: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- RENE CRUZ on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REEL GROUP INC., Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-01782 (S.D. Tex., June 21, 2016), alleges that the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members at the rate of time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant provides vendor inspection, third party inspection, certification, testing and manpower services for the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. 4409 Montrose Blvd. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com - and - Udyogi A. Hangawatte, Esq. KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd. Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com RESOURCE AMERICA: "Gansman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Gansman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Resource America, Inc., Michael J. Bradley, Carlos C. Campbell, Jonathan Z. Cohen, Edward E. Cohen, Donald W. Delson, Hersh Kozlov, Andrew M. Lubin, Richard Reiss, Jr., John S. White, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, Regent Acquisition Inc., Defendants, Case No. 160601492 (Pa. Com. Pleas, June 15, 2016), seeks preliminarily and permanent enjoinment from consummating, or closing a merger; rescissory damages; reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities Act of 1933. Resource America will be acquired by C-III Capital Partners LLC ("Parent") and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Regent Acquisition Inc. Plaintiff owns Resource America common stock and allege that the transaction is onerous and is undervalued. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq. Joseph M. Profy, Esq. David M. Promisloff. Esq. Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq. PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C. 100 N. 22nd Street, Unit 105 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 259-5156 Fax:(215)600-2642 Email: profv@prolawpa.com david@prolawpa.com ciarlanto@prolawpa.com - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302)295-5310 - and - Katharine M. Ryan RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP Richard A. Maniskas 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Tel: (484)588-5516 SYNTHES INC: Trial Commences in Suit Over Norian Bone Cement ------------------------------------------------------------ Martha Bellisle, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the physician who used a non-FDA-approved bone cement during a woman's spinal surgery and the company that ran an illegal test market to promote the dangerous product should be held accountable for her death, a lawyer for the woman's daughter told a jury on June 27. Reba Golden was vibrant and healthy when she agreed to let Dr. Jens Chapman operate on her back in 2007, but the surgeon never told Golden or her family that he planned to use a bone cement associated with blood clotting and patient deaths, said attorney Rick Friedman, who represents Cynthia Wilson in a lawsuit against the surgeon, the University of Washington and Synthes Inc. Dr. Chapman and Jansjoerg Wyss, former CEO of Synthes, knew the product's risks but continued to use it on patients in a scheme that one doctor called "human experimentation," Mr. Friedman said in opening statements of the trial. This case is about "two men who could not admit they made a mistake," Mr. Friedman. Michael Madden, a lawyer representing Dr. Chapman and the university, said Mr. Friedman distorted and ignored the facts by claiming Dr. Chapman "put the interests of Synthes and Mr. Wyss ahead of the best interest of his patient." "This is a case about a 67-year-old woman who fell and broke her back," Mr. Madden told the jury. The injury caused her extreme pain, and Chapman used a safe procedure to try to help her, Madden said. He added Dr. Chapman did not use the Norian bone cement in a way that put Golden at risk. The trial before King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers is expected to last up to eight weeks. Mr. Wyss recognized in the 1990s that as baby boomers aged, they were more susceptible to spinal injuries and if he could get a bone cement on the market to use in surgeries, the product would be worth about $500 million, Mr. Friedman said. Synthes bought a California-based company called Norian and altered one of its products to be used on the spine, the lawyer said. Taking the product through the normal regulatory process would be time-consuming and costly. Instead, Mr. Wyss and other company executives wanted to send the bone cement to surgeons across the county, who would use it and publish articles that could be used to secure Food and Drug Administration approval, Friedman said. But Dr. Michael Sharp, a Synthes manager of regulatory affairs, objected and began "writing to people in the company saying, 'We can't do this,'" Mr. Friedman said. Another doctor, Kenneth Lambert, also warned against the idea, saying while the Norian bone cement had great potential, it needed testing before being used on patients. Dr. Chapman used it on a pig in 2002, and it died. A week later, the company went forward with the test market. Mr. Lambert again voiced concerns about the product's safety and said sending it to untrained surgeons "amounts to human experimentation," Friedman said. In June 2002, Dr. Chapman submitted a proposal that laid out questions and concerns about the cement. Most disturbing, he said, was how only a small amount could cause severe clotting. He suggested a two-year timeline at the cost of about $400,000, Mr. Friedman said. But three months later, and before any studies were done, Chapman put it in a patient's spine, Mr. Friedman said. "Over the next five years, things did not go well for Synthes," Mr. Friedman said. By July 2003, there were three adverse events and one patient death. Two more patients died in 2003 and 2004, and by January 2007, the FDA demanded that Synthes put a label on the product saying it can't be used on the spine, Mr. Friedman said. But when Reba Golden went to Dr. Chapman and he agreed to operate on her spine, he used the Norian bone cement and she bled to death on the table, Mr. Friedman said. "For elective spinal surgery, no one bleeds to death," Mr. Friedman said. "It's like getting struck by lightning." In 2010, Synthes, Norian and company executives pleaded guilty to federal charges that they promoted the product for unauthorized use, Madden said. But Dr. Chapman was not involved in the "criminal enterprise that led to the federal prosecution of Synthes," he said. Dr. Chapman did not take part in the test market, and he never used Norian to treat compression fractures, Mr. Madden said. Dr. Chapman, a world-renown spinal surgeon, did 300-plus surgeries and used Norian less than 1 percent of the time, Mr. Madden said. "He was not part of any plan to profit from using Norian in the spine," Mr. Madden said. TNG WAXING: "Lowe" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- Jasmine Lowe and Vanessa Boone, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. TNG Waxing, LLC, DSN Waxing LLC, Final Frontier Waxing LLC and Douglas Bauer, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03112 (E.D. N.Y., June 14, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants operate European-style waxing salons throughout Brooklyn where Plaintiffs worked as waxing specialists. They claim to have been denied overtime pay and worked through their rest breaks. Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2747 Coney Island Ave Brooklyn, NY 11235 Tel: (718) 808-2224 Fax: (718) 808-2224 Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com VISA: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal Over High ATM Fees ----------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from Visa and MasterCard seeking to throw out a lawsuit accusing the credit card companies of illegally fixing ATM prices. The justices on June 28 agreed to review an appeals court ruling that said the antitrust case against the companies and three major banks could go forward. A group of consumers and independent ATM operators argue that payment processors illegally coordinated with Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. to adopt anticompetitive fees. A federal judge dismissed the case in 2013, but a federal appeals court revived the claims last year. The lawsuit claims the companies impose contract terms that prevent independent ATM operators from charging lower fees when consumers use debit cards that access cheaper processing networks. VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Pay $50MM in Civil Penalties to State of Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that on June 28, the same day that Volkswagen announced a $14.7 billion deal to settle claims in the U.S. with consumers and the federal government related to its alleged diesel emissions deceptions, Texas unveiled a partial settlement, calling for the German carmaker to pour some $50 million into state coffers. In 2015, Texas had filed a consumer protection lawsuit against the company. "Volkswagen misled Texas consumers by marketing and selling its diesel vehicles as 'clean' with knowledge that these vehicles were designed to meet emission standards only when being tested," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office said in a statement announcing the partial settlement. Under the terms of the deal, Volkswagen has agreed to pay $50 million to the state of Texas in civil penalties and attorneys' fees for the car company's alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The AG will determine at a later date what portion of that $50 million will be designated to cover either attorney fees or civil penalties, according to Kayleigh Lovvorn, a spokesperson for the state agency. Texas consumers will have the opportunity to participate in Volkswagen's nationwide buy-back program. The company has also pledged to establish a $2.7 billion trust fund for projects designed to mitigate environmental harm caused by Volkswagen vehicles' excess emissions. Under the terms of the mitigation trust agreement, approximately $192 million is allocated for Texas state projects. Unresolved are claims related to Volkswagen's alleged violations of the state's environmental protection laws, the AG's office said. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Kiwi Customers Won't Get Emissions Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Burrows and Grace Cabell, writing for Newshub, report that there will be no compensation for Kiwi customers affected by last year's revelations the company cheated on diesel emissions tests, Volkswagen New Zealand's general manager says. The comment follows a ginormous payout of US$21.7 billion to US Volkswagen owners that saw the company's American branch buy back vehicles embroiled in the scandal, and pay each customer up to $10,000 extra to compensate for their blunder. According to lawyers, the hefty settlement makes it the largest automobile-related consumer class-action lawsuit in US history. But Tom Ruddenklau says what's happening with Volkswagen in the US is different because car companies there face much more rigorous tests than in other countries. "In the US, the emission regulations over there are up to six times more stringent than anywhere else in the world," he explained. Mr. Ruddenklau says due to the high standards, a remedy for the issue in the US has proved much more elusive, forcing them to buy the cars back. "They actually haven't got a technical solution sorted for this issue yet, so because they haven't they're providing some compensation for customers. "Thankfully here in New Zealand, we had our solution developed earlier this year, and we've started the rollout with customers, which is just a software update on the vehicles." Mr. Ruddenklau says because of the fairly easy fix, Kiwi customers would not be receiving any compensation from the company -- but said they have been "working really hard to be up front and honest" with affected Volkswagen owners. "There's a technical issue, but there's also a relationship issue that you've got to deal with as well," he said. "New Zealanders appreciate people being up front and just saying it how it is, so we've tried to keep them informed as best we can." Volkswagen admitted in September 2015 to inserting a 'defeat device' in some of its vehicles that allowed it to circumvent diesel emission regulations. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Promises Full Restitution to Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Forbes.com reports that there's something for everybody in the $15 billion Volkswagen settlement the government and private attorneys annou. Diesel owners get the opportunity to sell their cars back to VW at pre-scandal prices plus at least $5,100 in cash for their troubles. A roster of the country's biggest class-action firms will get an unspecified but huge amount of fees, likely measured in the billions. And buried in the 42-page proposed settlement are tidbits for other folks, including the professional association for state attorneys general and manufacturers of electric cars. In total the settlement looks like a smaller version of the $200 billion tobacco settlement state AGs and many of the same private lawyers announced in 1998. The fees won't be as rich -- lawyers who got in on the tobacco settlement are still pulling hundreds of millions a year in fees from what is essentially a tax on smokers -- and it doesn't include the egregious terms that effectively handed a handful of big tobacco companies led by Philip Morris a cartel on cigarette sales. The settlement does promise full restitution to consumers plus a few thousand more in cash and a path for VW to mitigate the damage it caused by spreading excess nitrogen oxide, a lung irritant. It also spreads the money widely among mostly Democratic interest groups and contains another less savory feature of the 1998 tobacco deal: A $20 million payment to the National Association of Attorneys General. (The AGs got $103 million from Big Tobacco). The plaintiffs steering committee is led by San Francisco class- action firm Lieff Cabraser, which contributed $138,700 to Democratic causes in the 2014 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org. The 21 other firms on the committee include all the big players -- and mostly Democratic Party supporters -- in class actions: Motley Rice, Hagens Berman, Weitz & Luxenberg, Boies Schiller and Grant & Eisenhofer. The filing notes an "extraordinary aspect" of the settlement, also borrowed from the tobacco MSA: "None of the settlement benefits for Class Members will be reduced to pay attorneys' fees or to reimburse expenses of Class Counsel." This is an easily debunked statement, since the negotiators on VW's side of the table most certainly don't consider the fees to be coming from a separate pot of money. But as with the tobacco settlement, it may give the attorneys some measure of cover from objectors and writers like this one who criticize the size of their payday for brokering an agreement when the government provided most of the muscle. Also included in the proposed settlement is a $2.7 billion fund to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by at least as much as the doctored diesels are spewing out. And then there's $2 billion more "to create infrastructure for and promote public awareness of zero emissions vehicles." Could that include charging stations and advertising for Elon Musk's zero-emission Tesla cars? Perhaps. The payment to the attorneys general is a controversial move. They are settling their own claims and wrested an injunction from VW to prevent future misbehavior. Some AGs justify such payments as reimbursement for their investigative expenses, but as tax- supported officers it is not clear why their professional association should get the money. As noted back in 2008, the $103 million from Philip Morris quickly grew to $140 million and supplied most of NAAG's earnings after that. The professional group also once leased space in a building owned by the American Legacy Foundation, now Truth Initiative, an antismoking group the AGs established in the settlement with $1.4 billion in tobacco- industry funding. The VW deal certainly doesn't include protection from competition for VW like Philip Morris got. And the attorneys who negotiated it point out they are still suing VW's Porsche subsidiary and others including Bosch. So there's no evidence they are trying to make life unduly easy for VW. VOLVO: Superior Court Grants New Trial in Crashworthiness Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that in a ruling that hinted at potentially overturning the prohibition against introducing federal standards in strict products liability cases, the state Superior Court granted a new trial in a crashworthiness case against Volvo. A unanimous three-judge panel of the court June 24 vacated a defense verdict and granted a new trial in the case, Webb v. Volvo Cars of North America, which involved a car crash that killed a 2- month-old. The panel's decision focused on whether the state Supreme Court's game-changing 2014 decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex would have allowed defense counsel to introduce evidence showing the vehicle complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Superior Court Judge Victor P. Stabile, who wrote the 24-page memorandum opinion, said evidence about complying with federal standards may be permitted in the two available theories of liability outlined by the Tincher court, but he said the frontline appeals court would defer making its decision on the issue until it arises in a case that has been fully developed in the post- Tincher era. Although Stabile declined to predict the state Supreme Court's stance, his opinion spotlighted Tincher's impact in crashworthiness cases. "Tincher expressed two theories of strict products liability -- consumer expectations and risk-utility. It is possible that government/industry standards evidence could be admissible under both theories, one and not the other, or neither," Judge Stabile said. "It is also possible that the admissibility of such evidence will depend upon the circumstances of a case. The Tincher court noted the possibility of shifting the burden of production and persuasion to the defendant under the risk-utility theory. This burden shift, if it becomes law, may provide defendants a basis to advocate for the admissibility of government or industry standards evidence in risk-utility cases." Whatever Tincher's impact may be, Stabile said, the trial court in Webb should have advised the jury to disregard the evidence. According to Stabile, the action in Webb stemmed from a car crash in which a woman driving a 1997 Volvo sedan made a left turn across traffic and was broadsided by another car. Mark Webb brought the action on behalf of his son, Sabino Webb, a 2-month- old killed during the collision. He raised negligence and strict liability claims based on allegations that the Volvo lacked rear door bars that prevented intrusion during a side impact collusion. The federal guidelines were allowed into the case to specifically refute the negligence claims, but, after the court entered a directed verdict for the defendants on the negligence issue, the court did not advise the jury to disregard the evidence about the federal guidelines. The jury eventually entered a defense verdict on the strict products liability claims. Mr. Webb appealed, arguing that the evidence about the federal guidelines should not have been allowed into the consideration of the strict liability claims. Judge Stabile noted that, under Gaudio v. Ford Motor, Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts means that evidence about compliance with government standards is inadmissible in a strict liability action. That case, Stabile said, was part of a line of cases that relied on the 1978 Supreme Court decision Azzarello v. Black Brothers, which the Tincher decision overturned. The defendants, Judge Stabile said, argued that Tincher overruled the prohibition against introducing government or industry standards "by implication." Mr. Webb countered that Gaudio remained good law. Judge Stabile, however, said the decision to overrule Azzarello did not provide the panel with a sufficient basis to disregard the evidentiary rules outlined in Gaudio and related cases. "While it is clear after Tincher that the firm division between strict liability and negligence concepts no longer exists, it is not clear that the prohibition on evidence of government or industry standards no longer applies," Judge Stabile said. WAL-MART: "Manfredi" Mislabelling Suit transferred to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Manfredi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00612 (S.D. Tex., March 9, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 15, 2016, and assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06183. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has advertised and sold millions of containers of its Great Value branded "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" products as "100%" Parmesan cheese despite findings proving otherwise. Wal-Mart is a nationwide retail conglomerate selling its house brand "Great Value.". Plaintiff is represented by: Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. TRAMMELL PC 3262 Westheimer Rd., Suite 423 Houston, TX 77098 Tel: (713) 890-2894 Email: info@trammellpc.com Defendant is represented by: Jason Michael Hopkins, Esq. GREENBURG TRAURIG LLP 2200 Ross Ave, Ste. 5200 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 665-3660 Email: hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com WALTER INVESTMENT: October 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP on June 29 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Walter Investment Management Corp. (NYSE:WAC): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED COMMON STOCK OF WALTER INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP. FROM MAY 9, 2012 THROUGH FEBRUARY 26, 2015, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that a hearing will be held on October 14, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Ursula Ungaro, United States District Judge of the Southern District of Florida, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128, Courtroom # 12B, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in this Action for consideration including the sum of $24,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Co-Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one third of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $500,000, and an incentive payment of no more than $30,000 in aggregate to Class Representatives, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 20, 2016 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Walter Investment Management Corp. ("Walter Investment") during the period from May 9, 2012, through February 26, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Walter Investment common stock. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator at: Walter Investment Management Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866)274-4004; (Fax) (610)565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than September 1, 2016 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than September 1, 2016, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Co-Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Class Representatives must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and mailed to each of the following such that it is received no later than September 28, 2016: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District of Florida 400 North Miami Avenue Miami, FL 33128 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Jeremy Lieberman, Esq. Murielle J. Steven Walsh, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Co-Class Counsel Peter E. Kazanoff, Esq. David Elbaum, Esq. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tracy A. Nichols, Esq. Stephen Warren, Esq. Holland & Knight LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Counsel for Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may write to Co-Class Counsel at: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Jeremy Lieberman, Esq. Murielle J. Steven Walsh, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: June 13, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST SACRAMENTO, CA: "Barreiro" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Nick Barreiro, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. City of West Sacramento, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-at-00717 (E.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Barreiro worked for the City of West Sacramento for 3 years without being paid overtime compensation. Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 ZEEKREWARDS: Founder Faces Trial Over Alleged $900MM Scam --------------------------------------------------------- Emery P. Dalesio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a veteran of the multi-level marketing business is going on trial on federal charges related to what government investigators called a $900 million scam that bilked 1 million people across the United States and abroad. A jury expected to be selected on July 5 will have to decide whether Paul Burks intended to mislead investors five years ago with fanciful promises of 125 percent returns at a time the economy limped out of the Great Recession. Burks is charged with mail fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit tax fraud in one of the biggest cases of the past decade involving alleged Ponzi schemes. If convicted, Mr. Burks could be sentenced to 65 years in prison and fined $1 million. The trial could run four weeks. From a small, brick building in Lexington, North Carolina, Mr. Burks ran an online auction site. Participants were charged up to $1 to bid for the chance to buy heavily discounted consumer products like iPads. To drive customers to his auction site, Burks in 2011 launched a complicated online vehicle called ZeekRewards. It offered people who invested money, promoted the company on other websites and recruited other participants a share of auction profits. Investments were capped at $10,000, but people could invest on behalf of their spouses, children or other relatives. Some mortgaged homes to raise their investment. "The co-conspirators used this money, in Ponzi-like fashion, to pay other victim-investors in the scheme and to personally enrich themselves," prosecutors wrote in a court filing last month. "Put simply, Mr. Burks lied daily to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars for the scheme." The Securities and Exchange Commission shut down ZeekRewards about 20 months later, calling it a Ponzi scheme on the verge of collapse. Mr. Burks' former chief operating officer, Dawn Olivares, and her tech-savvy stepson have made plea deals with prosecutors and are expected to testify against him. Ms. Olivares became friends and worked with Burks on multilevel marketing companies since in the 1990s. Burks asked Olivares to join ZeekRewards and prosecutors said she collected at least $7.2 million for herself. Mr. Burks allegedly pocketed about $11 million from ZeekRewards in 2011 alone, prosecutors said. He was a former county music disc jockey and performed as a magician in nursing homes in the 1980s and '90s. After Mr. Burks' company was shut down, federal investigators found a massive country music memorabilia collection that has since been auctioned off to refund investors. Though Mr. Burks and his colleagues reported to the Internal Revenue Service that investors received more than $96 million in taxable disbursements in 2011, ZeekRewards actually paid out less than $13 million that year, prosecutors said. "The vast majority of income reported to the IRS was fictional and had neither been earned nor received by the victim-investors," prosecutors wrote in a summary of their trial evidence. "As a result, individual victim-investors filed false tax returns with the IRS reporting phantom income that they never actually received." Defense attorneys counter that Mr. Burks didn't misrepresent the ZeekRewards program and didn't mastermind a Ponzi or pyramid scheme. The parent company behind Burks' operations sold actual products -- bids for the penny auction site or stakes in ZeekRewards, defense attorneys wrote in summing up expected trial arguments. The ZeekRewards program collapsed under the pressure of rapid growth from more than 57,000 distinct users after the first year to 1.25 million months later just before the SEC shut it down, attorney Noell Tin wrote. "Growth of this magnitude was overwhelming," he said. Nonetheless, the parent company of ZeekRewards paid out 53 percent of the $939 million it generated during its lifespan, Mr. Tin wrote. "In other words," Burks' attorneys said, his company "made good on the core of its promise." Federal investigators said earlier investors were paid with money coming from new investors as in a classic Ponzi scheme. A court-appointed receiver said he's recouped $356 million from ZeekRewards executives and about 9,000 investors who made big money before the collapse. About $250 million has been returned to about 107,000 claimants, attorney Kenneth Bell said in an email. His pursuit of another more than $225 million includes a bank in the former Soviet country of Moldova. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *